Did you notice two very experienced parliamentarians of very opposing sides publicly agreeing, recently, upon a potentially significant improvement into our country's democracy? Preston Manning and Ed Broadbent are supporting a current NDP member, Kennedy Stewart's effort to require parliamentary debates upon certain issues of concern by ordinary citizenry. Some 20 other members, including two Conservatives have also agreed that such proposal should be considered. Manning is a former Reform Party, Canadian Alliance leader, who left office back in 2002, while Broadbent was leader of the federal NDP party for many years.
How it would work is basically, this: when some 50,000 citizens (say) signed online a petition that a certain matter must be decided by their parliament, such petition would be presented. If 5 (say) elected members agreed that such was worthwhile (was not frivolous, for example), then within a certain time period such matter must be brought up, debated, and concluded one way or the other by parliament.
This is not exactly a citizen's referendum , as within the ideal of Direct Democracy activists (like myself), but certainly goes a long way to-wards reducing the considerable frustrations created by the current process - which is so party-led, and publicly absent.
A 25 citizen petition method requiring, supposedly, similar results actually goes back historically many decades, but has not been followed in any effective manner within living memory.
A committee would be set up to examine the details over a period of perhaps one year.
The issue is expected to be brought up before the summer.
An article on this subject was printed in the Vancouver Sun newspaper on Feb. 26.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Swiss vote against increases in their holidays
Voting not to increase your statutory holiday time? That just occurred several weeks ago in Switzerland. Some 65% of the voters there concluded they did not want to put themselves into the shoes of the economically awkward French, Germans, or Greeks. The idea was to increase the yearly holidays from 4 to 6 weeks, as in those other countries. The unions wanted it. The common sense of the people came into play once again. They said it cannot be afforded.
Who says that people do not know enough to vote upon economic issues?
Would that we had such access to our government's failure to watch its indebtedness. Would not our people tell the Liberal government that it must get better control of the teacher's union by refusing their currently outrageous demands, especially in these rough times; if only we had a chance to vote upon such an issue? Not just that but other aspects of debt, which is growing so high.
Why cannot we prevail upon our own government to establish proper boundaries for Direct Democracy to work here in Ontario? It is our government isn't it? Tell your member we want it!
Quebec Students Need Democracy Aids
It is hard to talk unemotionally about those revolting students in Quebec. Were they for real? As allegedly mature students did they not realize that what they were doing was akin to complete anarchy? However, note that, between revolting protests they talked often about wanting to improve democracy. Their wild, unconstrained method was surely the wrong way to do that.
Well, what if in Quebec they had a proper form of Direct Democracy? Democracy is supposed to represent the views of the majority. Then, if their views about the proposed increase in their tuition fees had a majority opinion, that could be readily determined; without disrupting the whole society, or breaking windows. And, the government would have to let a referendum be pursued if a specified number of citizens (say 5%) signed an appropriate petition. The students readily could have organized that detail. And all of Quebec would have to follow the results of the ensuing question.
And the students could have been very pleased that their efforts would have been civilized, and more importantly, worthwhile, as deemed by the majority of their fellow citizens.
Caving in by the new Marois government simply puts off even less civilized behaviour, by other unconstrained pressure groups, for other matters, in the future.
Well, what if in Quebec they had a proper form of Direct Democracy? Democracy is supposed to represent the views of the majority. Then, if their views about the proposed increase in their tuition fees had a majority opinion, that could be readily determined; without disrupting the whole society, or breaking windows. And, the government would have to let a referendum be pursued if a specified number of citizens (say 5%) signed an appropriate petition. The students readily could have organized that detail. And all of Quebec would have to follow the results of the ensuing question.
And the students could have been very pleased that their efforts would have been civilized, and more importantly, worthwhile, as deemed by the majority of their fellow citizens.
Caving in by the new Marois government simply puts off even less civilized behaviour, by other unconstrained pressure groups, for other matters, in the future.
British referendum not truly Direct Democracy
Prime Minister David Cameron, of England, is proposing a referendum among his people as to their desire in remaining within the European Union. This is to take place hopefully in 2017, after an anticipated election about that time. In the meantime, he hopes to arrange some better terms.
This is an example of an effort to obtain a concluded decision from the people in a democratic fashion, that is for sure. And it is clearly proper for such an important issue to be settled by the people - rather than by possibly split political parties. However, do not confuse it with efforts to expand the idea of direct democracy. For in the latter case that involves a binding process initiated by the people.
This is one initiated by the government of the time.
At the moment there is no procedure within the UK to permit initiatives from the people, resulting in binding referendums. That is the the only way it is done in Switzerland, for example, where via that method, the Swiss people did vote several years ago not to join the EU. The Swiss are rightly pleased at that decision, seeing the troubles now confronting the EU. And the Swiss people pursue similar types of referendums often.
Perhaps, however, the Brits, seeing an opportunity to voice their own opinions upon an important issue on this one occasion, will push their government to give them more opportunities to do similarly in the future. For it is certainly right that the people should have a direct say in important issues, especially in this modern age of easy communication.
Don't you agree - even though we have no way to have any say about any issues, yet, here in Canada?
This is an example of an effort to obtain a concluded decision from the people in a democratic fashion, that is for sure. And it is clearly proper for such an important issue to be settled by the people - rather than by possibly split political parties. However, do not confuse it with efforts to expand the idea of direct democracy. For in the latter case that involves a binding process initiated by the people.
This is one initiated by the government of the time.
At the moment there is no procedure within the UK to permit initiatives from the people, resulting in binding referendums. That is the the only way it is done in Switzerland, for example, where via that method, the Swiss people did vote several years ago not to join the EU. The Swiss are rightly pleased at that decision, seeing the troubles now confronting the EU. And the Swiss people pursue similar types of referendums often.
Perhaps, however, the Brits, seeing an opportunity to voice their own opinions upon an important issue on this one occasion, will push their government to give them more opportunities to do similarly in the future. For it is certainly right that the people should have a direct say in important issues, especially in this modern age of easy communication.
Don't you agree - even though we have no way to have any say about any issues, yet, here in Canada?
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Diane Francis and Direct Democracy!
Diane Francis is a high profile writer (for the Globe and Mail?). Back in February she wrote a powerful piece about the need for Direct Democracy in Ontario. This was predicated by the Drummond report about Ontario's fiscal mess. He gave 360 steps that the government should take to get things back in shape.
But, she says - will they? The big flaw in our system, she says is - representative democracy. She says that politicians buy our votes by over-spending - especially from pressure by the huge chunk of our voting public which belong to the public sector. This huge unionized group represents our country's single biggest disadvantage , she says.
Only where voters in their particular jurisdiction can vote, when wanted, upon such questions as - "how much of a budget increase, if any, should the city?province?federal governments be permitted next year?" can discipline be imposed upon our politicians. It would actually make their lives easier, she says.
She refers to a relative, a mayor of a small municipality in the US where they permit direct democracy by his electorate, who was grateful for this sort of involvement by his voters recently.
It is a proven way to overcome profligacy.
We must find a way, here in Ontario, to have this direct involvement by ultimately accountable citizens to get back control over their government. Thank you Diane.
But, she says - will they? The big flaw in our system, she says is - representative democracy. She says that politicians buy our votes by over-spending - especially from pressure by the huge chunk of our voting public which belong to the public sector. This huge unionized group represents our country's single biggest disadvantage , she says.
Only where voters in their particular jurisdiction can vote, when wanted, upon such questions as - "how much of a budget increase, if any, should the city?province?federal governments be permitted next year?" can discipline be imposed upon our politicians. It would actually make their lives easier, she says.
She refers to a relative, a mayor of a small municipality in the US where they permit direct democracy by his electorate, who was grateful for this sort of involvement by his voters recently.
It is a proven way to overcome profligacy.
We must find a way, here in Ontario, to have this direct involvement by ultimately accountable citizens to get back control over their government. Thank you Diane.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Power of the People, Where is it in Canada?
Did you read that article by Bob Hepburn in the Toronto Star of Dec. 5? Democracy just is not working here. He effectively pointed out the relative inadequacy of your elected representative in pursuing your ideas or agenda. It is the party line to which that person more often must adhere, and for which he spends most of his time. Nothing new there. It has been the way it works - since, when - 200 years ago when parties first evolved?
What Hepburn does not well answer, however, is just what , in this modern era, one can do about it. He does suggest a few ideas - try talking to him or her, more, for example. A recent poll indicated that over 80% of Canadians are not happy with democracy, here. Hepburn noted that.
But he does not get to the real answer - which is to press for the implementation of Direct Democracy. Then, when enough individuals are concerned about an issue (to sign a petition towards answering the issue), referendums can be voted upon by the people. If passed, such ideas must become law.
That is the way it is done, often, in about 20 of the United States, within all three levels of government in Switzerland, etc. But, we must get to the member to have it implemented within party policy first - before it will become law. Why not do that? Tell your member to make that as a part of its party policy - or you won't vote for him or her at the next election. That would get some proper answers to the problem. Democracy would actually work, as designed - the power of the people would prevail, not the power of the party.
What Hepburn does not well answer, however, is just what , in this modern era, one can do about it. He does suggest a few ideas - try talking to him or her, more, for example. A recent poll indicated that over 80% of Canadians are not happy with democracy, here. Hepburn noted that.
But he does not get to the real answer - which is to press for the implementation of Direct Democracy. Then, when enough individuals are concerned about an issue (to sign a petition towards answering the issue), referendums can be voted upon by the people. If passed, such ideas must become law.
That is the way it is done, often, in about 20 of the United States, within all three levels of government in Switzerland, etc. But, we must get to the member to have it implemented within party policy first - before it will become law. Why not do that? Tell your member to make that as a part of its party policy - or you won't vote for him or her at the next election. That would get some proper answers to the problem. Democracy would actually work, as designed - the power of the people would prevail, not the power of the party.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Michigan votes in favour of a new bridge.
Guess that you noticed that Michigan voters did not, on November 5 support the wishes of the local owners of the Ambassador Bridge to void the construction of a new one funded entirely by Canada.
About 60% of the electors at that presidential election night disagreed with the highly funded effort by the family to ignore the friendly overtures by their Ontario neighbours. It was certainly an interesting exercise, to determine the wishes of Michiganders by a democratic referendum.
Many other interesting questions were answered in similar fashions on that same day by the twenty or so other states that allow such demonstrations of democratic feeling. For example, Washington and Colorado (but not Oregon) voters felt it should be legal to smoke small quantities of marijuana. This result was despite the fact that such laws are federal in nature. It will clearly be more difficult to enforce them in those states; and - probably also in the adjacent province of British Columbia.
And three more states voted contrary to the majority of others in the country to permit same-sex marriages. All of this going on next door to us, while we in Canada ignore the fact that our laws do not permit such voices of democracy to speak. Will we, in Ontario, Canada, ever reach the 21st Century, where easier means of communication almost demand better means for the citizens to express their points of view?
About 60% of the electors at that presidential election night disagreed with the highly funded effort by the family to ignore the friendly overtures by their Ontario neighbours. It was certainly an interesting exercise, to determine the wishes of Michiganders by a democratic referendum.
Many other interesting questions were answered in similar fashions on that same day by the twenty or so other states that allow such demonstrations of democratic feeling. For example, Washington and Colorado (but not Oregon) voters felt it should be legal to smoke small quantities of marijuana. This result was despite the fact that such laws are federal in nature. It will clearly be more difficult to enforce them in those states; and - probably also in the adjacent province of British Columbia.
And three more states voted contrary to the majority of others in the country to permit same-sex marriages. All of this going on next door to us, while we in Canada ignore the fact that our laws do not permit such voices of democracy to speak. Will we, in Ontario, Canada, ever reach the 21st Century, where easier means of communication almost demand better means for the citizens to express their points of view?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)